the Fi bias

I’m just curious what other people think the root of this Fi bias is. A lot of people are equating Fi with authenticity and genuine caring, and feel compelled to view Fe as ‘shallow’ instead of ‘having breadth’.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any comments about how Ne, Se or Te are more ‘shallow’ or inauthentic than Ni, Si or Ti- nor are there comments from Ni, Si, or Ti types going on and on about how they intuit/sense/think so much more deeply than Ne, Se or Te types (respectively, sticking to same N, S or T comparisons)- so why is this so common with Fe/Fi?

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

There have been somewhat similar arguments (equally as self-serving and one-dimensional) between N and S, but I’m wondering why F is the only function with so much contention between its own E/I attitude.

(I know this discussion is *kinda* going on in another thread, but I didn't want to further derail that thread.)

edit: also, I was hoping to steer clear of the empathy/sympathy debate, and focus on the E/I differences of deep/shallow vs. depth/breadth. I mean, no one ever refers to Ne as being shallow, I don't think there's any argument about it's 'breadth' being significant- so why is it so different for F?

I don't understand Fe enough to say it's shallow. I commented in that somatotype thread about INFJ earlier though, and I see their Fe as deep.. in that some could find a universal sort of spin on acceptable social behavior or wording that would transcend anything merely self-interested (like Fi could be, or SJ might). Fi types can be universal as well, and I think their causes are more worthwhile if they are in touch with things outside of their own interests. They won't always be that way though. In that case, they might be "genuine", but possibly not useful. So it's nothing to get offended about. Genuine is not necessarily good.

Actually, I do hear complaints from people that Te is "too broad and shallow" compared to Ti. In particular, I have heard complaints from my Ti coworkers that the Te-oriented policies get in the way of fully understanding and optimizing for the specific situation. Or complaints about Te-preferring managers implementing policies without actually having an understanding of the existing situation and all the ramifications. Even the movie cliché of the ESTP troubleshooter who comes in and breaks all the rules to "get 'er done" reflects that. I also find the scheduling and marshaling resources aspect of Te also tend to ruffle feathers of those who prefer Ti a fair amount. Still, I would agree there is more more mutual respect between those who prefer Te and Ti.

Secondly, I don't personally think that Fe is inherently inauthentic or that those who prefer Fe don't genuinely care. I think Fi-doms tend to be obsessed with internal Feeling congruence, and therefore being "genuine" tends to be a major concern. Also, Fi values tend to be built up out of personal experience, so tend to be identified deeply with the self, which also tends to make one more defensive about them. Fe tends to be more concerned with mutuality and community... so from that perspective Fi can tend to come across as selfish and egocentric (and may well be, in many cases). I'm not sure bias is entirely one-sided.

Finally, I think Feeling functions have more emotional valence because they involve people, aesthetics and relationships (pretty much by definition) and therefore tend to defy being entirely reduced to neutral abstractions. That's one advantage that Thinking has in general over Feeling: Thinking valuations are more detachable and externally verifiable than Feeling valuations.

i think Fe is very genuine for Fe users, just like Fi is very genuine for Fi users, and probably can seem odd to Fe users, just like Fe can sometimes seem baffling (as in, i'm impressed because i'm not as good at using it) to me.

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

it's not more genuine, it's more self-oriented. Fe is based off other people, it's more altruistic, in a way. i can't speak for everyone, but i don't exalt Fi - as a matter of fact it's kind of annoying socially sometimes, and i wish my Fe was better. i also think that while Fi seeks "deeper" connection, it's not a better connection. Fe users can connect very well with others and sometimes in a more meaningful way to others - even if Fi users connect in a way that is obviously meaningful to us.

one other thing - i've heard arguments that Ne is shallower than Ni. from INFJs, incidentally. and i would argue that Ne is not "deep" because that's not the point of Ne - Ne is looking for broadscale patterns and congruences, rather than following a single pattern very far. in the same way, i imagine, Fe seeks broadscale connection, while Fi seeks to go far in. hence why Fe users are generally so good at knowing what their position is in large groups / what large groups think of them - reading crowds, noticing people patterns, etc. Fi is much better at figuring out the nuances of a single person, be it someone else or myself.

Yeah this is a bit of a problem, even if it is mostly unintentional insensitivity. I think its really because Fi doms don't really fully understand Fe (myself included). Some try to understand it by placing it in opposition to the positive attributes of Fi which results in Fe being assigned negative connotations.

I just wish there were better descriptions of Fe out there. Most encourage stereotype views or simple aren't 'Fi friendly'. Its even worse with the XNFJs, because Ni and Fe and the most incomprehensible functions to me. They turn everything I know and gauge the world on upside down. Its like trying to imagine a world where people walk on the ceiling.

INFP 4w5 so/sp

I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.
- Emily Bronte

I’m just curious what other people think the root of this Fi bias is. A lot of people are equating Fi with authenticity and genuine caring, and feel compelled to view Fe as ‘shallow’ instead of ‘having breadth’.

[...]

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

There have been somewhat similar arguments (equally as self-serving and one-dimensional) between N and S, but I’m wondering why F is the only function with so much contention between its own E/I attitude.

Wow, this Fi/Fe depth/shallowness crap still goes on?

I think the issue is that F is the subjective function that most closely talks about how we relate to the cloudy gray area that is relating to other people and ourselves. Traits like "shallowness" and "genuine" then best appear to fall under the umbrella that is the Feeling function.

Ironically, since F is about personal perspective, people tend to lose perspective when they discuss it.

I've seen similar debates about Ti vs Te, where personal pride causes a bit of contention, but it still usually lacks the emotional attachment that the F axis receives.

Finally, I think Feeling functions have more emotional valence because they involve people, aesthetics and relationships (pretty much by definition) and therefore tend to defy being entirely reduced to neutral abstractions. That's one advantage that Thinking has in general over Feeling: Thinking valuations are more detachable and externally verifiable than Feeling valuations.

What do you think?

That. Fi and Fe are subjective and irrational, they're deeply personal. Subject matter that fits that criteria is often less likely to stop a person being defensive and look at an alternative pov if it lends even a sniff of offence to their preference. Basically Fi and Fe get butthurt.

I don't understand Fe enough to say it's shallow. I commented in that somatotype thread about INFJ earlier though, and I see their Fe as deep.. in that some could find a universal sort of spin on acceptable social behavior or wording that would transcend anything merely self-interested (like Fi could be, or SJ might). Fi types can be universal as well, and I think their causes are more worthwhile if they are in touch with things outside of their own interests. They won't always be that way though. In that case, they might be "genuine", but possibly not useful. So it's nothing to get offended about. Genuine is not necessarily good.

Yeah, I tried to point that out to proteanmix - that "genuine" can be inappropriate, immature, ridiculously over-reactive...I said that genuine wasn't always a good thing, and I never called Fe shallow. I actually was singing the praises of Fe throughout the thread.

But both types have their plusses and minuses. I sit and talk to an aux-Fe user pretty much ALL DAMN DAY LONG (this is an "S" as well!) and I don't think to myself "wow this person is so shallow."

People want to be butthurt about nothing, though. You can't stop them. You can't stop me either. Run after me as fast as you can, you can't catch me, I'm the ginger bread man...wait, what? where I am I? ...you can see how DONE I am with this topic.